Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 40

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Archive 45

Handysize, handymax and supramax

I have no expertise in this subject area, but I just came across Supramax which lead me to Handymax and the template there led me to Handysize. Is there really a need for three separate articles? --Derek Andrews (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against grouping these vessel size categories in a single article. Tupsumato (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Look at the template, there's a bunch of articles all relating to sizes specific to one thing or another. Unless we consolidate all of them, I don't see any point to doing just a couple. We're not paper after all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC),

The problem I see is that it leads to confusion. There are inconsistencies in definitions across these articles. Maintaining one article to a reasonable encylopaedic standard would be much easier than three.--Derek Andrews (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Panamax should exist as a separate article, regardless of how others are consolidated. And Seawaymax and Malaccamax as well. Seawaymax has forced unique designs on ships, making the ships have special bows to maximize capacity. I don't see how merging Handysize with Panamax would be useful or even navigable. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 08:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

As handymax and supramax are but subcategories of handysize, surely merge all these modest little articles into the latter, with redirects. That would be much more useful to readers. Whether a single article covering all bulk carrier named sizes makes sense, I am less sure, though incline towards. Davidships (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

List of deep(-)water ports

These redirects have been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 1; it currently points to Panamax ports, but this doesn't make sense, Post-Panamax ports are deepwater ports, and many non-Panamax ports are deepwater ports. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 07:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Reassessment of ship class articles to list-class articles

While reading the class assessment log, I noticed that in late February a large number of ship class articles were reassessed as list-class articles by User:Thewellman. Was this done according to some new policy? Tupsumato (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

No, some of those were articles that I'd created that consisted only of an infobox and a table of the ships, so I can't really blame him. That said, I really can't imagine any ship class article that should be classified as a list once they were fleshed out, regardless how incomplete their current status, so they need to be returned to their proper classification.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

And looking at some of those assessments in general, he appears to have been very liberal with criteria B2 for many articles that which I personally would not deem reasonably complete. Start class, certainly, but not "C". I find it hard to give B2 a "yes" if there's no description of the ship(s), forex, but maybe that's just me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Move request

There's a new move request at Talk:Kirov-class battlecruiser; many of the WP:SHIPS community already debated this at length in August 2011, but it's been raised again. Shem (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Ship disambiguation

On the one hand we've got User:Parsecboy moving ships to remove unnecessary disambiguation (like this) and on the other we've got User:BilCat moving ships to include the disambiguation (like this). You tell tell what side of the argument I fall on since I did the original RM for INS Vikramaditya (R33) to move to INS Vikramaditya, and I added the note to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) indicating that "If there is only one ship of the name, it is wrong to disambiguate, per WP:PRECISE." IMHO the line "Articles about a ship class should follow standard Wikipedia naming conventions" makes it quite clear that we should not over-disambiguate - but at the moment we have (at least) two highly regarded admins and editors making contradictory moves. I propose we get a bit of consensus and save some nugatory effort. Shem (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Since I've been pinged, I'll add my views. PRECISE is policy and it trumps whatever guidelines are set at NC-SHIPS - narrow project guides should (almost) never ignore broader, project-level consensus. If the latter contradicts PRECISE (or WP:TITLE in general) then it's wrong and needs to be corrected.

More broadly, the purpose of disambiguation is to help us decide where to put articles with the same claim to a name. If there is only one article with a given title (as in the Shropshire case Shem highlighted above), there is absolutely no reason to add a pennant number. It serves no purpose other than to conform to articles that do need disambiguation. Parsecboy (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

And leads readers to believe that the pennant number is somehow part of the name (and I'm not stating an opinion on US hull numbers). Shem (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why it's thought that "leads readers to believe...". Are we assuming our readers are stupid? Or are we doing what we're supposed to be doing and assuming clue? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to be stupid, merely uninformed, to assume that where the title of the article includes the pennant number, it is actually part of the name. And our readers doubtless follow a bell curve of intelligence, so, yes, a proportion of them are less intelligent. Shem (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I doubt Shem's assertion - except perhaps for any readers who would think that any disamb is part of the subject name. However, there is a quantum of informed readers who think that ship prefixes (naval and merchant) are indeed part of the ship name, evidenced by the editors who include them in the name field in infoboxes.Davidships (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, but I was only trying to follow what was written in the guidelines, namely "For an article about a modern-day ship, include the ship's hull number (US Navy hull classification symbol) or pennant numbers". I somehow missed the note that Shem sneaked though only a few days before, and the limited discussion the preceded it. It gets complicated trying to follow conflicting guidelines. I'll move the ship article back forthwith, snd you geniuses can handle the issues yourself from now on. I won't interfere with you precious article titles any longer. - BilCat (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the snarky tone, BilCat - no one was criticizing your action specifically, and no one was arguing that you were treading on anyone's turf. If you took what I said as critical, I apologize and did not intend it that way.

That said, since you did interpret the guidelines to prescribe disambiguation in all cases, the guideline needs to be reworded. Parsecboy (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree; including the pennant number should be done in all cases. And if this was changed, it was not advertised very well at all, since this is the first I've heard of it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

What's the purpose of including the pennant number in the title if not solely for disambiguation between identically named ships? It's only a useful bit of information to experts, and even for that small slice of readers, it's of highly dubious utility (see for instance Sturm's related comment in the thread over at WT:MILHIST about USN squadron names). Parsecboy (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Related: why can't we have an all-encompassing naming system of "Country shiptype Name" and a parenthetical launch year if needed for disambiguation? Our current system is entirely haphazard, it's not consistent, and it leads to confusion, as exemplified above. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with "Ed" about an all-encompassing naming system using a launch year as a disambiguator if needed. If I were to write an article on the Coast Guard cutter Unalga for instance, would it be titled "USCGC Unalga" or "USCGC Unalga (1912)" or even "USCGC Unalga (WPG-53)"? There are no other Coast Guard vessels named Unalga. I would like some kind of determination on this before I submit the article. Are we likely to find someone changing things back and forth? Why can't we agree on things? Cuprum17 (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

@Cuprum17: Under the current US ship naming guidelines, which I note are separate from the British, German, and all other guidelines, "USCGC Unalga (WPG-53)" would be the correct title. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:Precise would say don't use the hull number if it's not needed; ie, the only ship of that name used by the Coast Guard. I can go either way on US hull numbers as I'm familiar enough with the sequence so that I don't have a hard time picking out which exact one when I type out the name in the search field. That's not true about British pennant numbers and I would much prefer exchanging them for launch year where needed. The numbers changed at various times so they're not a reliable disambiguator and they do nothing to help me select the proper article when I type in the name in the search field unless I already know the pennant number. So I've often chosen the wrong damn article when trying to set up a link in one of my articles, which is really irritating when I've got a fleet action or something with lots of ship names to deal with.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems we have two separate but related issues being discussed here, and it might be best to split them into separate threads to keep the discussion coherent.

Either way, pennant numbers are rather frustrating from the editor's perspective—for example, I doubt anyone who isn't intimately familiar with one of the ships could tell me which Ark Royal—R09 or R07—was recently decommissioned and which was scrapped a few decades ago without clicking on both articles. Parsecboy (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I absolutely agree that disambiguation by pennant number (of which some ships had several) is somewhat haphazard compared to launch date (which is what we use for earlier warships) - but isn't it rather a big task to rename all those articles, even if we found consensus? Shem (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

As well as the fact that pennant-number disambiguation - for instance "USS Bennington (CV-20)‎" - is how the ships with U.S. Navy hull numbers, at least, are referred to in sources. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Remember though that hull numbers are not pennant numbers - hull numbers do not generally change (apart from re-designation like CV to CVA and the like) while pennants are frequently changed over the course of a ship's career. Parsecboy (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Ship articles needed

Further information: Malaysia Airlines Flight 370

RSS Steadfast, RSS Victory and MV Swift Rescue (RSS Swift Rescue?) are all in need of articles. Mjroots2 (talk) 11:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

SS Telefon

New article SS Telefon. Would once again be glad if you all would give it the once over. -Arb. (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

SS Denebola

Another new article for your kind attention: SS Denebola. -Arb. (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Holm & Molzen

Many thanks to all who improved the Telefon and Denebola articles. You may also be interested in Holm & Molzen, the ship management company responsible for Denebola and many others. -Arb. (talk) 10:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't get the houseflag link to work, so I've replaced it. Miramar Ship Index lists eighteen Holm & Molzen vessels. Davidships (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Davidships. Have copied your comment to Talk:Holm & Molzen; might prove useful there one day. -Arb. (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Essex (whaleship) moved

Cuchullain (talk · contribs) has moved Essex (whaleship) to Whaleship Essex, with no discussion, citing WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURALDIS. This was briefly discussed in 2008 on the article's talk page when someone moved the article in the same way. Anyone want to weigh in? This seems to me to be an unnecessary move. —Diiscool (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, clearly I felt this move was better as "Whaleship Essex" is a/the common name for this ship, and at any rate it's well established natural disambiguation, which is preferable to the parentheses (especially when the parentheses just says exactly the same thing as the natural disambiguation). The page has a convoluted history, but appears to have been at Whaleship Essex from in 2004;[1] the move was initiated by User:Dpbsmith. It was moved to the present title in 2008[2] by an editor that left only disparaging comments and was later permanently blocked. That's the extent of prior discussion I saw so I didn't think it would be controversial. If it's not, I'm happy to discuss it or open an RM.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I'm in favor of parenthesis. Essex (whaleship) is clearly about a whaleship called Essex, but Whaleship Essex could be anything from a whaleship called Essex to a song "Whaleship Essex" about a whaleship called Essex... Tupsumato (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

IMHO it should be moved back and a full discussion initiated. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I would oppose an automatic choice of "Essex (whaleship)", because it's unlikely that sources use parentheses and it's unlikely readers will type that into the search box. If we can't get an unambiguous name from sources, we could use parentheses as a last resort. bobrayner (talk) 12:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

When it comes to article names, the sources are irrelevant - Wikipedia's standards are. This may or may not be right, but it's how it is. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources don't indeed use parentheses - because sources don't need to DAB between Essex (whaleship), Essex and any of the dozens of other Essexes at Essex (disambiguation). The "(whaleship)" bit isn't part of the name - so sources are irrelevant. IMHO, Essex (whaleship) is better than Whaleship Essex for a host of reasons, but feel free to initiate a discussion if you feel it's really important. And that should certainly be preceded by moving it back. Shem (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

My point exactly. Putting the disambiguator into parenthesis separates it from the actual name. The article Essex (whaleship) is about Essex which happens to be a whaleship instead of something else. IMHO, Whaleship Essex draws too much attention to the disambiguator. Tupsumato (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I've moved the article back to Essex (whaleship). —Diiscool (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Moravian Church Mission Ships

Thanks once again to all who helped improve my recent new ship articles. Here's another (with a DYK nomination this time) that would benefit from the once over by experienced ship editors. -Arb. (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

HMS Resolution (1779)

And another, somewhat related and perhaps slightly contentious. -Arb. (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

British Shipping Controller

This was on Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Transport. A once over would be appreciated. -Arb. (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Jersey Packet

Last one for tonight. -Arb. (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Troop ship categories

I've noticed that we have Category:Troop ships of the Royal Navy and Category:Troop ships of the United Kingdom. Is there a good reason for this? Alansplodge (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, not all troopships that the United Kingdom used were operated by the Royal Navy, hence the need for the two categories. During WWII, many were operated by the Ministry of War Transport, such as Empire Bure. Mjroots (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

And just for information the U.S. picture during the Second World War is even more complicated. Troop ships were operated by the Navy, Army and War Shipping Administration's (WSA) agents. In essence all commercial type hulls were under WSA control. Certain core hulls were actually owned by Army or Navy, though even those could be reallocated by WSA. The Army's operation was more varied than Navy with hulls owned by Army or bareboat chartered and crewed by civilian mariners in Army employ. The WSA ships were operated by WSA agents, sometimes the shipping companies that had owned and operated the ships in peacetime. SS Argentina (1929) and sisters are examples. Those were neither USS nor U.S.A.T. even if essentially operating as U.S. Army troop transports. As a note, the categorization of the U.S. troop and transport ships is pretty confused here and not without reason as some managed to be both Army and Navy. I believe some even hit all three categories. Palmeira (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

As noted above, yes - "By nation" and "By navy" are seperate trees. The navy categories fall under the national ones, but as Palmeira explains, not all government, or even military, ships are navy ones. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there an easy way to tell which ship belongs in which category? It seems to be apportioned by pot luck at the moment. Alansplodge (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Certainly in the case of the U.S. ships the entire ship's history, often under differing names, is required. See USS Republic (AP-33) for an example of a ship with several names and Navy, civilian and Army history. So that ship would fall into three "troop ship" categories, national, Navy and Army as well as civilian passenger ones. Palmeira (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm asking about this UK specific example. We have SS Empire Javelin "operated by the Ministry of War Transport" in the Royal Navy category, and her sister ship, SS Empire Broadsword, in the other one. I've just been working on SS Arcadian which was an armed merchant cruiser and then a troopship and was given an "HMS" title, but the bulk of her crew seem to have been merchant seamen. Which one does it go in? Alansplodge (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I've altered the categories for Arcadian and Empire Javelin. Mjroots (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. It still seems a rather fuzzy distinction to me, but I think I get it now. Could somebody please cast their eye over the SS Arcadian article's quality rating? Hopefully, it's not still Stub-Class. Alansplodge (talk) 09:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed it isn't. Good, solid B class there. Mjroots (talk) 12:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and regards. Alansplodge (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

FAC review

Hey all, I currently have SMS Kaiser Wilhelm II at FAC (see here) and I've had a hard time finding reviewers - I'd hate to see it archived for lack of reviews. If you have the time and interest, please offer suggestions for improvement, I'd be very grateful. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Troop ship categories

I've noticed that we have Category:Troop ships of the Royal Navy and Category:Troop ships of the United Kingdom. Is there a good reason for this? Alansplodge (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, not all troopships that the United Kingdom used were operated by the Royal Navy, hence the need for the two categories. During WWII, many were operated by the Ministry of War Transport, such as Empire Bure. Mjroots (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

And just for information the U.S. picture during the Second World War is even more complicated. Troop ships were operated by the Navy, Army and War Shipping Administration's (WSA) agents. In essence all commercial type hulls were under WSA control. Certain core hulls were actually owned by Army or Navy, though even those could be reallocated by WSA. The Army's operation was more varied than Navy with hulls owned by Army or bareboat chartered and crewed by civilian mariners in Army employ. The WSA ships were operated by WSA agents, sometimes the shipping companies that had owned and operated the ships in peacetime. SS Argentina (1929) and sisters are examples. Those were neither USS nor U.S.A.T. even if essentially operating as U.S. Army troop transports. As a note, the categorization of the U.S. troop and transport ships is pretty confused here and not without reason as some managed to be both Army and Navy. I believe some even hit all three categories. Palmeira (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

As noted above, yes - "By nation" and "By navy" are seperate trees. The navy categories fall under the national ones, but as Palmeira explains, not all government, or even military, ships are navy ones. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there an easy way to tell which ship belongs in which category? It seems to be apportioned by pot luck at the moment. Alansplodge (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Certainly in the case of the U.S. ships the entire ship's history, often under differing names, is required. See USS Republic (AP-33) for an example of a ship with several names and Navy, civilian and Army history. So that ship would fall into three "troop ship" categories, national, Navy and Army as well as civilian passenger ones. Palmeira (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm asking about this UK specific example. We have SS Empire Javelin "operated by the Ministry of War Transport" in the Royal Navy category, and her sister ship, SS Empire Broadsword, in the other one. I've just been working on SS Arcadian which was an armed merchant cruiser and then a troopship and was given an "HMS" title, but the bulk of her crew seem to have been merchant seamen. Which one does it go in? Alansplodge (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I've altered the categories for Arcadian and Empire Javelin. Mjroots (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. It still seems a rather fuzzy distinction to me, but I think I get it now. Could somebody please cast their eye over the SS Arcadian article's quality rating? Hopefully, it's not still Stub-Class. Alansplodge (talk) 09:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed it isn't. Good, solid B class there. Mjroots (talk) 12:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and regards. Alansplodge (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

Marlborough (ship)

I would like some assistance in checking this statement, because the source I have is not particularly reliable:

The Iquique Another possibility is that the boat Burley found was from the H. Fölsch Co, Hamburg's, 899 ton barque Iquique. She the went missing in 1883 after being spoken to at Cape Horn. The Iquique had originally been called the Marlborough. The Iquique had sailed from Newcastle On Tyne in February 1883 under Captain G Eduard Jessen with a load of coal for Iquique, Chile. In particular I need a source for the renaming from Marlborough to Iquique, when and where it was last spoken to and the name of the ship, plus anything else which might add to the story. The other information I am seeking is when was the life saving station set up in or about Good Success Bay. NealeFamily (talk) 09:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I have added another citation for the Iquique as formerly Marlborough. Another, from 1883 Lloyd's Register, London is at [3]. Haven't found a source for the disappearance of Iquique, though there would probably have been a report in the newspaper Lloyd's List. However, as written, this para looks like OR, so maybe shouldn't be there at all unless such a speculation can be reliably sourced. Davidships (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

OK slight difficulty with the OR aspect - but what I have as evidence is:

(1) the Iquique was originally named the Marlborough (up till 1882) and (aaording to the website) went missing near Cape Horn in 1883 - it would be reasonable to assume that any life boats on board could still have had the name Marlborough painted on them.

(2) Burley was shipwrecked from the Cordova in the area in 1888 which was after the Iquique (1883), but before the Marlborough (1890) - the information he provided was consistent with that wreck and he reported sighting a boat from the Marlborough on shore

The item simply is there to show that there is a reasonable alternative expanation for Burley's account. The weakness with the paragraph at the moment is a more reliable source for the Iquique being wrecked in the vicinity. Hence my request for input. NealeFamily (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

All references now found NealeFamily (talk) 09:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

FAC review

Hey all, I currently have SMS Kaiser Wilhelm II at FAC (see here) and I've had a hard time finding reviewers - I'd hate to see it archived for lack of reviews. If you have the time and interest, please offer suggestions for improvement, I'd be very grateful. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

SS Prinses Amalia

New article for review. -Arb. (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

USS Monitor GA nomination

The USS Monitor article has just been nominated for GA and reviewers/opinions are needed. To start the review and/or comment please go to the GA nomination page, under the Warfare section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Lady Penrhyn (ship)

Does anyone know of any details as to the capture of Lady Penrhyn (ship) in 1811 in the West Indies? Regards Newm30 (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Peer review of Kronan (ship)

I've requested a peer review for the article about the Swedish late 17th-century warship Kronan. My goal is to take make it an FA and I believe feedback from members of this project would be very helpful. If you think something is missing or could be improved, please comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Kronan (ship)/archive1. Your input would be much appreciated!

Peter ^Isotalo 17:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Port terminology

Please see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Port/dock terminology, (version of 20:50, 2 April 2014).
—Wavelength (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

People who are willing to answer should probably check wikt: wiktionary and update/correct/add as necessary as well. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 07:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to Participate in a User Study - Final Reminder

Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC).

SMS Amazone

Shouldn't SMS Amazone be a set index? I notice that RMS Amazon is one of two ships, and there are two SMS Amazones with articles. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 06:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Generally speaking, no, cases where there are two ambiguous titles do not require a disambiguation page or a set index since a simple hatnote will suffice to get readers to the article they may be searching for. Parsecboy (talk) 10:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Ghostly vessels and real derelicts

See categorization proposal here.Alekksandr (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Display of ship names

An issue has arisen over the display of ship names. The discussion is at talk:List of shipwrecks in 1828. You are welcome to contribute there. Mjroots (talk) 05:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

SS Californian: Massive OR

Hi all. I wanted to drop a line and ask for some help fixing SS Californian, a fairly lengthy article that appears to be about 90% OR. It's been tagged for years and I posted a note on the talk page last spring saying the article needed to be sourced or I was prepared to start deleting things. Anyways long story short, it fell off my radar screen but I am again looking at the article. So far though I am having little luck sourcing most of the material. I really don't want to turn what looks like a well worded and fairly lengthy article on a very notable subject into a stub, but that is about all that we have right now that is backed by RS sources. I am going to keep looking for a bit and will hold off for a couple more days before doing anything drastic. But after that I will, with much regret, start swinging the Wiki meat cleaver. Any help with sourcing would be greatly appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead with the slashing and burning - looks like a load of OR to me. Parsecboy (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Giving this a quick read while travelling, I would say that there doesn't look like much real OR here - it's mostly stuff that can be well cited by editors who have a "Titanic" library (I don't, though I could probably make a start on this in a day or two). I'll mention it on the Shipwrecks Project. Davidships (talk) 11:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick text comparison shows a considerable amount of the text can be found in RMS “TITANIC” Reappraisal of Evidence Relating to SS “CALIFORNIAN” (Marine Accident Investigation Branch, Department of Transport, 5/7 Brunswick Place, Southampton, Hants SO1 2AN; dated 12 March 1992). So, before "doing anything drastic" or "slashing and burning" you might want to try to correlate that with current content. Palmeira (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I also just noticed that this article is rated as B Class by the project. I don't see how that rating can be justified given the lack of sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

When this was rated B-class back in 2008, several book references now appearing in Further Reading were listed in the References section, but not cited in-line. I do not know whether we required in-line citations then, but their absence does not automatically mean OR. The article certainly does not meet B-class now. Dankarl (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Having had a quick read of the opening pages of the MAIB report, and comparing it with the existing article, I found a number of elements that were - if not incorrect - misleading. And then there are questionable lines such as [the report's] "contradictory conclusions can be attributed to the writing of the report being delegated to a junior member of the branch, possibly due to the high workload of the MAIB at the time" and "This could explain some of the inept research". Doesn't read like NPOV to me, perhaps a bit of site clearance would not go amiss to build a better article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

At least in MILHIST, I'm pretty sure inline citations are required for B-class... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal of US BB names and hull symbols

24.49.4.19 has deleted the names and hull numbers from all of the US battleship articles. He's added some worthwhile material to the articles so I'm disinclined to revert his edits wholesale, but I've restored them to BBs 1-10 and 39. I'll leave the others to those with faster internet connections. I left a message on his talk page, but we'll have to see if he persists in his obnoxious behavior.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to me and i'm sorry for the unneeded edits. I just saw them as redundant being on the top of the page but I have since refrained from removing them. I have had another user say that instead of adding the name and/or hull id I should add them into the "ship caption" section instead? Either way I will go back and add to the other articles when I can. Sorry for the trouble.--85 GT Kid (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Kronan (ship) at FAC

I just nominated Kronan for FAC. Since the article is included in the scope of this project, I'm posting a reminder here.

Looking forward to your comments!

Peter ^Isotalo 15:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Sewol (세월)

Shouldn't the ferry that recently capsized have an article separate from the disaster article? It's a fairly large ship, being about half the size of Titanic, according to CNN -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 06:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

While I disagree with the comparison made by CNN, I agree that the ship is big enough to warrant its own article. However, the problem is that there's probably very little to write about in addition to the sinking. Tupsumato (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd wager that at some point, enough material will be published about the ship to warrant a full article. Presumably the news sources will dig up any other relevant information (homeport, normal route, earlier incidents involving the ship, etc.) that we can put together a decent article. And I'd assume there's technical/construction info in the usual places (Miramar, etc.) to cover that aspect of the vessel. Parsecboy (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

There may be enough now for a separate article. There certainly is some information that doesn't seem overly relevant to the accident. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 05:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Use of Ship's Badge pics from Nav Source

I had a user say something about my use of the ship's badge pictures that I have been adding. From what I have read on the guidelines (and I am no lawyer) but it seems like I am in the parameters of fair use. The picture isn't even even copyrighted AFAIK and it has a small foot print so I thought it would be ok. Any thoughts?--85 GT Kid (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

That user is me. As an example, I noticed that USS Hornet (CV-12) now has a badge image. The image page says that the image came from the Hornet page at NavSource. I also noticed a coopyright image at the bottom of the NavSource Hornet page behind which is this html:

http://www.navsource.org/archives/helpers/copyright.gif

(copyright image)

Clearly, the owner/editors of NavSource have claimed a copyright on the content of their pages. I asked Editor 85 GT Kid if the owner of NavSource has given permission for these images to be used on Wikipedia and suggested that there are members of WP:SHIPS who are more conversant in matters of copyright than I.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't sure if I should throw your name out like that lol. I am really sorry I can't believe I missed that copyright there. Should they be taken down? I don't know of any free sources for something so small (ship's badges are not popular).--85 GT Kid (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Navsource can only claim copyright on their original content - they have no claim to copyright for something they merely uploaded but did not create (which is why we can still use all the USN photos Navsource uploads). What we need to determine is who actually created the badges and if they're still under copyright - I know for instance that Disney created a number of wartime badges and other artwork for various USAAF and USN units. Those are all still copyrighted as far as I'm aware. Parsecboy (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

According to the webpage, the image was provided to Navsource by Mike Smolinsky, who is a member of the Navsource team. It appears from [4] that these images are of patches from his collection - quite likely taken by him. There is a contact point there. Davidships (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Maritime incidents by country

Should the sub-categories be in the format of "Category:Maritime incidents in fooian waters"? For example, Category:Maritime incidents in Albania‎ should be Category:Maritime incidents in Albania‎n waters. And Category:Maritime incidents in Switzerland‎ just looks wrong! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that would be unnecessarily restrictive. It's conceivable that an incident could happen that wasn't on the waters of a country. Regardless, there's no reason to confine the category to water when water is implied by "maritime". —Diiscool (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The current category name seems more succinct and has the same meaning in practice. (But I note that in the case of the only Swiss entry there is no suggestion of an "incident", just an archaeological find.) Davidships (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Undiscussed change to Template:Infobox ship begin

Trappist the monk (talk · contribs) has made an undiscussed change to the ship infobox documentation by adding provision for a caption to the infobox and has begun implementing this, again, with no discussion. See French cruiser Sully for an example of what it looks like. I'm dislike the the caption and have begun reverting his changes to articles that I've watchlisted and started a discussion over at Template talk:Infobox ship begin#Infobox caption to see what the members of the community think about his unilateral change. I think that he has perhaps forgotten that silence is only consent if the issue has been raised.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Except it was raised. Last August. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a case of Keine Antwort ist eine Antwort as my German teacher (that's educational role - he was a Geordie) once explained. A lack of response could be unspoken agreement or absence of consensus.GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Moved to Infobox ship begin

One discussion in one place please.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Side-scan sonar

I think this is the related WikiProject? -- This article could do with some improvement, especially as it's in the news right now, due to MH370 and Bluefin-21 search -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 05:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Unmanned underwater vehicles

This category tree seems to be a mess... is Category: Robotic submarines‎ for optionally manned vehicles? or is it the container for ROVs and AUVs? The current contents could do with diffusion, depending on how the category tree is cleaned up. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 05:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal of HMS/HMCS in Infobox

I have had a discussion with an individual about the removal of HMCS/HMS in the infobox on several Canadian warship articles. I argue that it demonstrates that a ship was commissioned ship in compared to a non-commissioned ship and all that entails under maritime law. I was just curious as to what the procedure is. Can I leave it in? Does it have to be removed?Foxxraven (talk) 11:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I am the one with whom Editor Foxxraven has had this discussion. The discussion arises because my AWB script removes prefixes from the the value portion of the |Ship name= parameter in {{infobox ship career}}. Our conversation is here.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Well if a user objects to changing something that has been in position for a long time and where the guidance or MoS is ambiguous then, its probably time to stop making that change until the consensus position is established. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm having trouble reading your comment as anything other than an accusation of wrongdoing. It implies that I continue to make those particular edits and am ignoring Editor Foxxraven's objection. I have not used the AWB script that strips prefixes from the |Ship name= parameter in {{infobox ship career}} templates since Editor Foxxraven's first post on my talk page. If you have evidence to the contrary, please show it.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

If we are talking about |ship name=, there is no need to include the prefix to that field. The prefix is not part of the ship's name. Tupsumato (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, it is not part of the name of the ship. In my view, it is a type of "honorific" derived from the status of the vessel as a commissioned naval ship - perhaps a bit like "Professor" for an academic that has a particular status. Davidships (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

That's not how it works either. It's not an honorific, and it's not part of the name - it's a prefix. One does not say "the ship U.S.S. Kitty Hawk" - that's redundant, as 'ship' is in the 'USS' prefix. The ship name is the ship's name, no more and no less. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Can you really equate a ships prefix with the honorific 'Professor'? Presumably academics don't pop out of the womb as fully formed Professors; they had to earn that honorific.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hence my "a bit like". No of course it's not the same. But it doesn't pop out of the shipyard as an HMS (question is about British examples, US may be different); it has to be formally commissioned into the Navy to be an HMS/HMCS. That quite a different thing to "delivery" by the shipyard. But anyway, we agree that it's not part of the name. Davidships (talk) 12:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Infobox ship career: lists in parameter values

Live

History
Spain
Name	Using break 1 Using break 2 Using break 3 Using break 4 Using break 5 Using break 6
Namesake	Standard * list 1 Standard * list 2 Standard * list 3 Standard * list 4 Standard * list 5 Standard * list 6

Sandbox

History
Spain
Name	Plainlist css class 1 Plainlist css class 2 Plainlist css class 3 Plainlist css class 4 Plainlist css class 5 Plainlist css class 6

In the infobox Usage guide under the heading Diverse stylistic issues, the use of bulleted lists is proscribed. The preferred method for listing multiple items in a single parameter is to separate each item with <br /> markup. There are problems with some implementations of that method. When each item is on a separate line, the rendered display for that parameter's value in the right column is slightly lower than its title in the left column and, there is a larger separation between the last two items. I asked about this at WP:VPT who have supplied a better solution than the one I came up with.

The infoboxes at right have lists:

live infobox using <br /> markup with items on separate lines (shows the vertical offset and the gap between the last two items):

|Ship name=Using break 1<br />

Using break 2<br />

Using break 3<br />

Using break 4<br />

Using break 5<br />

Using break 6

live infobox using standard * list markup (this also shows a slight vertical offset):

|Ship namesake=*Standard * list 1

*Standard * list 2

*Standard * list 3

**Standard * list 4

*Standard * list 5

*Standard * list 6

modified sandbox infobox using standard * list markup but displaying the bulleted list as a plainlist:

|Ship name=*Plainlist css class 1

*Plainlist css class 2

*Plainlist css class 3

**Plainlist css class 4

*Plainlist css class 5

*Plainlist css class 6

There is an artifact to this: in normal * list markup, the ** markup indents the list item. This does not appear to work with the plainlist class (it doesn't work in the {{plainlist}} template either). A workaround is to insert    between the * and the list item value.

It would seem that we could, perhaps should:

1. Modify {{infobox ship career}} and {{infobox ship characteristics}} to use the plainlist class for those parameters where lists are permissible
2. Edit the usage guide to deprecate <br /> formatting and to specify the use of * list markup as the preferred list method
3. Create a bot that will sift through these templates and replace <br /> formatting with * list markup and also remove existing {{plainlist}} templates.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

A fix to common.css now makes plainlist act like the normal * list markup where ** indents one level from the item above it.

I have made these parameters 'listable': |Ship name=, |Ship identification=, |Ship owner=, |Ship operator=, |Ship registry=, |Ship refit=, |Ship honours=, |Ship honors=. Clearly not all parameters should contain lists, |Ship launched= is an example. Are there others that should be listable?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed move

There is a proposed move under discussion at Talk:Hulk_(comics)#Requested_move, changing what is now a disambiguation page (Hulk) to an article on the comic character. The discussion there mentions nautical use of the term, Hulk (ship). There was an article alert for the Comics project but not for this project. Kablammo (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Ship grounding infobox

The infobox on 1950 USS Missouri grounding incident is a bare transclusion of {{infobox}}. Is there a better box to use, other than perhaps {{infobox event}}? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Infobox ship career

USS Bang

History
Spain
Name	Ship name
Namesake	Ship namesake
Owner	Ship owner
Operator	Ship operator
Port of registry	Ship registry
Route	Ship route
Ordered	Ship ordered
Awarded	Ship awarded
Builder	Ship builder
Cost	Ship original cost
Yard number	Ship yard number
Way number	Ship way number
Laid down	Ship laid down
Launched	Ship launched
Sponsored by	Ship sponsor
Christened	Ship christened
Completed	Ship completed
Acquired	Ship acquired
Commissioned	Ship commissioned
Recommissioned	Ship recommissioned
Decommissioned	Ship decommissioned
Maiden voyage	Ship maiden voyage
In service	Ship in service
Out of service	Ship out of service
Renamed	Ship renamed
Reclassified	Ship reclassified
Refit	Ship refit
Stricken	Ship struck
Reinstated	Ship reinstated
Homeport	Ship homeport
Identification	Ship identification
Motto	Ship motto
Nickname(s)	Ship nickname
Honours and awards	Ship honours
Honors and awards	Ship honors
Captured	Ship captured
Fate	Ship fate
Status	Ship status
Notes	Ship notes
Badge	Ship badge

Does it not seem odd that when a ship infobox uses |Ship renamed= it is displayed between |Ship out of service= and |Ship reclassified= which is often several lines below |Ship name=? Am I missing something? Shouldn't the new name directly follow the old name?

From the template code, here are the {{infobox ship career}} parameters in the order of their display. Besides |Ship renamed=, are there any others that should be moved? What about the order of the groupings of these parameters in general? Name or identification information; owner/operator information; construction details; in commission / service life dates; etc. Are they correct? I've listed other possible changes below.

• Ship class – why is this here? It isn't documented as part of {{infobox ship career}} nor included in any of the template skeletons. Should it be removed?
• Ship name
• Ship namesake
• Ship owner
• Ship operator
• Ship registry
• Ship route
• Ship ordered
• Ship awarded
• Ship builder
• Ship original cost
• Ship yard number
• Ship way number
• Ship laid down
• Ship launched
• Ship sponsor
• Ship christened – move to follow |Ship launched=?
• Ship completed
• Ship acquired
• Ship commissioned
• Ship recommissioned
• Ship decommissioned
• Ship maiden voyage
• Ship in service
• Ship out of service
• Ship renamed – move to follow |Ship name=?
• Ship reclassified – move to follow |Ship name=/|Ship renamed=?
• Ship refit
• Ship struck – move to follow |Ship decommissioned=?
• Ship reinstated
• Ship homeport
• Ship identification – move to follow |Ship name=/|Ship renamed=?
• Ship motto – move to precede |Ship badge=?
• Ship nickname – move to follow |Ship name=/|Ship renamed=?
• Ship honours
• Ship honors
• Ship captured
• Ship fate
• Ship status
• Ship notes – move to the end?
• Ship badge

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The |Ship renamed= is, in my opinion, primarily intended to indicate the year when the ship was renamed. This is also reflected in the usage guide although the alternative way of using the field is also described. Personally, I don't use this field and instead collect the names to |Ship name= field with corresponding year ranges. In my eyes, it's a redundant field as the |Ship name= should reflect also the current name of the ship and could perhaps be phased out/depreciated.

|Ship class= should indeed be removed. I agree with your proposal to move |Ship christened=, |Ship struck= and perhaps |Ship identification=.

Tupsumato (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Somewhat a general mess as this template is tailored to naval ships yet includes nonsense "commercial" fields in that context. For example:

• Ship owner (redundant with vessel's flag in naval context)
• Ship operator (Could have naval use as multiple national agencies often operate naval type vessels.)
• Ship registry (naval nonsense)
• Ship route (naval nonsense)

A good scrub of naval and commercial templates would not be out of order. For those commercial type auxiliaries with both commercial and naval service separate boxes, one strictly naval the other strictly commercial, might be appropriate, just as we see with naval vessels serving with two or more nations. Palmeira (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

We could make wholly separate templates for naval and civilian ship careers instead of using the same template for both, but with hiding some of the fields. That would remove the need for scolding someone for using |Ship homeport= instead of |Ship registry=. Also, we could move the way people describe civilian ship careers away from naval ships (e.g. no separate career boxes for multiple owners). On the other hand, I also like the current system, so perhaps that would just add complexity without providing anything worth the trouble... Tupsumato (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

There are already separate templates: 1) Warships (except submarines), 2) Submarines, 3) Age of sail and 4) Commercial vessels. Then there is Full code for individual ships. That last is where the problem I mention lies. I may have added convenient fields from the full code to warships or commercial vessels to handle specific cases myself so there are probably lots of variants spread among all the ships here. While it is a bit more trouble and runs some risk of having info boxes be far longer than articles for many ships I probably lean toward two clearly separate boxes for ships with clear and separate naval and commercial "careers" that fall short of warranting a split article. I suspect there are more people doing things with naval vessels who are not all that well versed on maritime practice than on commercial vessels where there is less general interest. Just fixing with a note, rather than scolding, seems in order. Palmeira (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

For the record, there is only one {{infobox ship career}} template. I think what you are referring to is the template skeletons in the documentation page. Each of those is simply a subset of the available template parameters that were selected to cover most cases for those particular groups of ships.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, agree those are subsets of the full choices. The subsets are pretty good if people use them for the two distinct types of "careers"—naval/commercial. The full template leads to some forcing naval concept pegs into commercial holes or the reverse. There may be an argument for eliminating the "full" template in favor of a naval and commercial template to be used as two info boxes in cases of mixed careers. While I agree some of the "order" is odd, no tweaking of order is going to solve actual misuse of fields. Palmeira (talk) 10:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

At right is a infobox with the parameter position changes I suggested. You all should play with it and see what changes should be undone, or what other changes should be made.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I still kind of dislike the |Ship renamed= field. How are you supposed to use it together with |Ship name=? Also, |Ship reclassified= should come after |Ship commissioned= because if that field is used to indicate year, it would happen chronologically after |Ship commissioned=. Also, |Ship refit= also usually occurs somewhere between commissioning and decommissioning. |Ship homeport= could be placed after |Ship registry= because these fields are used for nearly the same purpose, but rarely if ever for the same vessel (naval vs. civilian). |Hono(u)rs and awards= should come after badge, IMHO. I mentally group it with |Ship motto= and |Ship badge= instead of the group where it is now. Tupsumato (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I've made the adjustments that you suggested. I don't have an answer for |Ship renamed=. Perhaps it has no value and should be deprecated and removed.

I wonder about the parameter names that contain the prefix re as in |recommissioned=, |refit=, |renamed=, |reclassified=, |reinstated=, etc. In some cases these imply multiple associated events: a ship might be commissioned, decommissioned, placed in inactive reserve, reactivated, recommissioned, decommissioned, struck, scrapped. It seems to me that we might adapt {{infobox ship career}} to support some number of multiples of these kinds of parameters, perhaps three shall be the number. Then we might write:

|Ship commissioned=16 July 1954

|Ship decommissioned=21 September 1959

|Ship commissioned2=31 October 1963

|Ship decommissioned2=5 March 1965

With this, |Ship recommissioned= is deprecated in favor of |Ship commissioned2=.

The same method could apply to |Ship name= though the number should be somewhat larger, perhaps ten.

I wonder about the value of |Ship refit=. Is it not true that ships go through refit several times in a lifetime? Are these maintenance periods important enough to warrant a place in the infobox. If so, which one do we select, or do we allow for several as I've suggested above?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, there should be only one |Ship name= fields where names are separated either line break or plainlist. As for |Ship refit=, naval ships generally receive a major mid-life upgrade, so I think a separate field is justified. Tupsumato (talk) 07:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

|Ship honours= and |Ship honors= can both be displayed simultaneously but probably shouldn't. We can make one of them the default so that if both have a value only that selected one displays; or we can hide both when both have values. Lest we upset anyone in the pro-British English / pro-American English language camps I'm more in favor of the latter choice. Whatever the decision, this same rule should also apply to the {{infobox ship characteristics}} parameters |armor=, |armour=, |draft=, and |draught=.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I have tweaked the sandbox markup so that when both |Ship honours= and |Ship honors= have values, neither are displayed. When only one has a value, that one is displayed. You can see this at work in the infobox at right. Both |Ship honours= and |Ship honors= have values so neither are displayed.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Infobox ship career header

I recall that we have discussed the header before. Here is a possible solution that wan't discussed at the time.

This solution uses the |Hide header= parameter. When |Hide header=<blank> or |Hide header=no then the header is displayed with a horizontal bar that reads Career with country and flag below that. When |Hide header=bar, all you see is the country and flag header. This is useful for the last option which is |Hide header=plural which changes text in the career header bar to Careers. I did this because it never seemed right to me that the country is listed parenthetically in the header. So, to give it more space and prominence, this solution occurred to me.

|Hide header=<blank>

History
Austria- Hungary
Name	Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand

|Hide header=bar

History
Austria-Hungary
Name	Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand

|Hide header=plural |Hide header=bar

History
Austria-Hungary
Name	Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand
History
Spain
Name	Sin Nombre

|Hide header=yes

Name	Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand

I'd like to find a better set of parameter values for |Hide header= and an alias that could ultimately replace |Hide header= but I haven't yet thought of anything suitable.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, "Careers" is wrong. It should be "Career" if we are writing from an individual ship's point of view. Also, I'm not sure if we need the options "=bar" and "=yes". Can't see any use for those except mis-using. Tupsumato (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

As it is now, each new {{infobox ship career}} template added to the infobox carries the Career (country) header which amounts to Career 1, Career 2, Career 3, ... So what you are really saying this: the Career term in the header is unnecessary, right? Every time {{infobox ship career}} is included in the infobox, the rendered output should look something like the |Hide header=bar example.

The |Hide header=yes is useful for those occasions where duplicate fields a desirable. It isn't often used but it is done. I see no reason to take that functionality away. Nor do I think that these parameters will be misused; and if they are? fixes are easy.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I may be wrong, I believe he is simply saying that it would never be appropriate to use "Careers", because from the ship's perspective, the term "Career" would properly encompass the entirety of a ship's lifetime. If agree with elements from both your statements: while most of the header options have their place, there's really no reason for "Hide header=plural" to exist. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot about using multiple career boxes or custom fields. Thanks for reminding me. Also, Huntster clarified my point regarding plural careers. Tupsumato (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll give it one last attempt. I know that a ship isn't a person. In my lifetime I could have a military career, a business career, and perhaps a political career. I can then be said to have had careers. A ship could have a career as a military ship, a commercial ship, as a yacht. The ship then, can be said to have had careers. Are these two not similar enough to warrant the plural title bar?

If careers (plural) is the wrong word for the 'things' described by multiple {{infobox ship career}} templates, what is a better word? History? Curriculum vitæ?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

That's one way of looking at it, but another way is saying "I've worn many hats in my career, from joining the military, serving in politics, to owning my own business." I dunno, perhaps we need some clarification from the linguistics department. Finding a replacement term is certainly an option...curriculum vitæ seems unnecessarily wordy, but history might work. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

For the time being, |Hide header=plural is disabled and I've changed the title bar to History.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that works nicely, thanks Trappist. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Project 21956 proposed for deletion

I have proposed Project 21956 for deletion. The entry can be found here. Tupsumato (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The proposal has been relisted due to lack of consensus. Tupsumato (talk) 08:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

MH370 ships

FYI, if anyone was looking for some ships to start articles on, at Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370#Search asset list displayed by two collapsible wikitables are some redlinked ships that have been involved in the search. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 06:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

"aircraft carrier"

Should seaplane tenders be included at List of aircraft carriers of Germany; or experiments in the development of aircraft carriers? See talk:List of aircraft carriers of Germany -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 04:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Moved to talk:List of aircraft carriers of Germany

HBC vessel Prince of Wales (barque)

I just looked on Prince of Wales (disambiguation), it's not there. The HBC had many vessels, I hadn't heard of this one before; it came up redlink just now in the name origin section of Compton Island, re its namesake. Anyone familiar maybe with HBC vessels able to provide more on it for a stub/start?Skookum1 (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

NNS Okpabana

The NNS Okpabana article is seriously in need of referencing, expansion and updating. Plenty of material available (link on talk page). Therefore a bounty of a barnstar is offered to any editor(s) who bring the article up to GA standard. Mjroots (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Help with SS Espagne (1909)

Hi all. Sander1453 drew my attention to the SS Espagne (Anversois, 1909). It looks like an unusually detailed article about a Belgian freighter sunk during World War II. The Dutch wiki article is supposedly in AfD. Here are my concerns... It cites no sources and I have serious doubts about the notability of the ship. The first ten pages or so of a Google search failed to yield anything that really rings the notability bell. Named warships, ocean liners and cruise ships I believe have gained a de facto acceptance of notability from the community provided there is reliable evidence of their existence. But I don't think this extends to smaller ships. A freighter or tanker would need to have some independent claim to notability and I can't find much at all to support it. I have tagged the article for notability and am seriously considering AfD. If you do a search be aware, there is a CGT passenger ship from 1910 with the same name. Thanks for any help. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:SHIPS convention is that ships over 100'/100tons should be notable enough to sustain an article. Subject to meeting WP:GNG.

Re this ship, it turns out that there were two ships built in 1909 that carried the name Espagne. The other was of 11,155 GRT and was scrapped in 1933. If/when that ship gets an article, we should consider a page move using the builder as a disambiguator.

Returning to this ship, Wrecksite has some history, but it is unreferenced and should be treated with caution. Uboat.net has details of her loss. A Yahoo search for "Espagne" + "Adolf Deppe" brings up some more sources in French. Mjroots (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I would challenge that "convention". It's simple enough to apply the GNG. Is there substantial coverage in independent sources? (Not just sources that try to catalogue every ship). bobrayner (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I refer the honourable gentleman to our record at AFD. Mjroots (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that smaller ships are non-notable. It's just been my understanding that by precedent and consensus a presumption of notability applies to named warships and large passenger/cruise liners, again presuming reliable sources attest to their existence. I think the smaller merchant ships absolutely can be notable if they meet GNG or some other notability conferring criteria. But finding RS sources for this ship is proving to be a real bear. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

This should be a keeper, will see what I can do later today. Mjroots (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Done what I can. I've created a shipindex page at SS Espagne and moved the article to SS Espagne (Anversois, 1909). The CGT ocean liner is the most likely of the other four to get an article, and arguably has a better claim to the original SS Espagne (1909) title. Mjroots (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I knew that Archeosousmarin had a page on the ship, just took a little while to find it! Mjroots (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Good work. I've copied the knowledge to nl-wiki and I think we'll keeep the article now. Sander1453 (talk) 06:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Tanks to everyone for their help. And I agree that we have enough now to keep the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I created SS Espagne (Provence, 1909) last night. Needs an editor with access to Miramar to fill in a few details. Mjroots (talk) 07:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I subscribe to Miramar. What details do you need? Manxruler (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Exact launch date for a start, but any missing info is always useful. Mjroots (talk) 05:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

There was almost nothing more to find at Miramar, no launch date at all. I added the single detail I could find that was not already in the article. Manxruler (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, thank you for that. No doubt it would have been reported in local/regional newspapers at the time. Mjroots (talk) 08:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds sensible. Manxruler (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I have added the SS Espagne (Provence, 1909) to the List of ocean liners. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

HMS Pandora 1859 vs USS Jeanette

Please see Talk:HMS_Pandora#Other_Pandoras; the Pandora became the Jeanette, which has an article, HMS Pandora (1858) does not; doesn't seem it should be just a redirect, but I don't know practices with such successive names; there's a large number of places named for the Pandora and her crew (see Drury Inlet for starters), and I know more is out there in various older histories of BC and the Pacific Station and in some more modern ones.Skookum1 (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I cannot see any problem about a redirect, unless and until the article becomes too large and a fork is necessary. I do not believe that it makes the slightest difference to the reader (indeed, it gives instant access to a bigger story) - and I don't follow the idea that every HMS or USS or whatever must have a discrete article. Let the article title follow the leading notability and redirects deal with the rest. Much better than endless stubs. Davidships (talk) 22:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

General practice is to only have one article on a ship unless it was particularly notable in two different navies. The example that first comes to mind is USS Phoenix (CL-46) and , but for the vast majority of ships that served in more than one navy (or under different names in the same navy) one article will suffice. Parsecboy (talk) 23:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Content at the Jeanette' article needs expansion re the Pandora then; I don't have enough in those cites to do much; I'll see what I can find in certain histories available at http://www.nosracines.ca i.e. Howay, Scholefield, Howay & Scholelfield (together), Begg, Bancroft; Captain Walbran is on-line somewhere; in "Legacy" alone there might be twenty items (currently around 12) for the Pandora.Skookum1 (talk) 02:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@Skookum1: - do you gave access to the Gale News Vault? Should be plenty of material there from contemporary British newspapers. I get free access via my library'w website. Mjroots (talk) 07:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Ships At Wikimania 2014

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Infobox ship begin

Ship articles seem to have a very strange system of infoboxes. There might be a better (faster, less complex) way to handle these. Can anyone tell me how this system came to be used (because perhaps I'm overlooking something critical)? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The archives have what looks like one of the opening discussions, but I'm afraid that you'll need someone who's been in this project for longer than me for the full answer! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Kirill is still around; perhaps he'll have time to share his memories. I'm assuming that the goal is having multiple flexible submodules, and Lua might be able to do that with more grace than the old templates-in-a-table system. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

That's part of it, certainly. The more specific problem the system was intended to solve, if I recall correctly, was that ship infoboxes can potentially contain an arbitrary number of submodules; for example, a ship that served with two navies will have two {{Infobox ship career}} sections, a ship that served with four navies will have four, and so forth. There was no effective way to do this within a single template at the time the template was designed, and I'm not sure that Lua is going to provide any better solution either (short of having each section rendered as a set of "careerX-paramname" parameters, which I suspect would be rather cumbersome in practice). Kirill ^[talk] 23:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The system could atleast be simplified by making the {| included in the begin template, like how other template systems are done, instead of separately, since the infobox doesn't actually begin with "begin", so is not the most intuitive name for the first template that doesn't actually start the infobox... -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 06:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Moving the{| wikitable markup inside {{infobox ship begin}} would require a matching {{infobox ship end}} for the closing |} markup.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 09:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, which would be a sensible situation, making it complementary and matching. {{infobox ship end}} could even be created as a redirect to {{End}} -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

That seems like a change that could be made by a bot, which is good. I don't think anyone wants to hand-edit 28,000 articles. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, could be done by a bot. But just how would you go about implementing it in a way that's transparent to readers and editors? One possible way:

1. create an interim version of {{infobox ship begin}} that has the {| markup
2. replace {|{{Infobox ship begin}} in all articles that use {{infobox ship begin}} with {{Infobox ship begin/interim}} and at the same time replace the closing |} with {{Infobox ship end}}
3. add {| to {{infobox ship begin}}
4. replace all instances of {{Infobox ship begin/interim}} with {{Infobox ship begin}}
5. delete {{Infobox ship begin/interim}}

Is it worth the effort?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

If it's done by bot, there wouldn't be too much effort on the part of individual editors. It would make the infobox more logical, so I think it's worth the effort. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 07:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Related question: Does anyone know if there are any other infoboxes structured sort of like this? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

{{Infobox flag}}

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

That lets you have six sections, but they're all part of a single transclusion, instead of multiple ones wrapped in a table. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It looks like {{Infobox aircraft}} has the same system. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Related AfD

Hi all, you may be interested in this AfD on an article that falls within the project's scope. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

HMS Adamant (A164) sourcing issues

At Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#HMS Adamant as Reserve Fleet Flagship we have a report that the information about the career of this ship is inaccurate. In fact there are next to no specific citations in this article, and the references listed either don't exist or don't provide this information. I haven't been able to find such information either. If someone could address these issues I would appreciate it; otherwise I'm inclined to stub the article down to the bare essentials. Mangoe (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Pacific Squadron

When I come across articles like Pacific Squadron that I think should be part of the WP:Ships should I just add them? This article seems like it would be of interest to the project.--Plmerry (talk) 05:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that one is of interest to the project. Thanks for pointing it out! -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

New article of possible interest

A quick FYI to anyone interested, Brianboulton has created SS Arctic disaster as a sub article to SS Arctic. Granted it is still under construction, but so far it looks promising. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Help needed at Draft:The Cunard Queens

AFC would appreciate any expert help in improving and reviewing this draft: Draft:The Cunard Queens. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Why does there need to be an article about the two ships together when they both already have independent articles? —Diiscool (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Does seem a pointless article. Difficult to see what content could emerge that is not already covered in the two ship articles and Cunard Line. Davidships (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Are not these two ships the same class (albeit highly modified from one to the other) ? Wouldn't a class-article be in order instead of what you created? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't go for a class article unless we can find a very reliable source which states that the vessel belong to the same class. I don't think this kind of article ("Cunard Queens") is necessary — the information can be incorporated to the existing single-vessel articles. Tupsumato (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion of "Lost at sea" and "Missing person" incidents in ship articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should we include routine and non-notable "lost at sea", "missing person", "suicide attempt", and other similar incidents in articles on the ships where they occurred? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahecht (talk • contribs) 22:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Recently, an IP editor has added "lost at sea", "missing person", and "suicide attempt" incidents to dozens of cruise ship articles. As morbid as it is, these incidents are almost routine, and most aren't really notable. Given that many of these ships have as many people as a small town or a large building, and that we don't include a list of routine crime and missing person incidents in articles on towns and buildings, I feel that most of the non-notable incidents shouldn't be including in the ship article. The exceptions would be:

• Incidents involving notable people (such as Robert Maxwell)
• Incidents that received significant media coverage meeting the requirements of WP:NOTNEWS (such as Leon Klinghoffer, Disappearance of Rebecca Coriam, or Disappearance of Amy Lynn Bradley)
• Incidents where the ship itself was somehow involved (either in the case of tragedy, such as the Sewol or Costa Concordia, a notable incident such as the Maersk Dubai incident, or due to mechanical failure or rough weather, such as Bounty (1960 ship)).

I didn't want to go ahead and mass revert these additions without gaining some sort of consensus on the issue first. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Broadly speaking I agree. Such minor incidents are not really of sufficient importance to warrant attention in an article about a ship. If the incident gained a great deal of attention of course, then that would be a different story. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
• Agree. Guidelines should be modified to reflect this IMO. Maybe an exception for half a dozen deaths from one incident, but this could be determined by the editors of that article. The ship is, for most examples given, just a "venue" for someone's death. The locale doesn't make the incident noteworthy unless the person is. Student7 (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
• This ought to be covered by WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, and so on. If reliable, independent sources make a point of highlighting a particular ship when discussing some missing person or suicide attempt, then we could too, but this should not dominate the article, and we shouldn't be listing routine news (otherwise cruise-ship articles would be an incredibly long list of port calls, celebrity guests, schedule changes &c). bobrayner (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
• Completely agree. Except for specific instances, they simply are not notable. I would suggest extending this concept to reports of ships picking up refugees, as I've been seeing an uptick in these being added to articles. This is also a fairly common occurrence. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• I agree on the refugee thing. Except in certain cases like the Tampa affair that received significant media coverage and had lasting implications, these are routine enough to be excluded. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 02:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Go by the sources. If it's got independent, secondary sources to back it up as due coverage, then it can be mentioned. If it's just some random trivia, then, no, it does not belong. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
• Follow the sources--If there is significant coverage then its notable. If there is not signigicant coverage then it is trivia and should be left out or all incidents summarized in a sentence or two.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

LX(R) nominated for deletion

I have nominated the article LX(R) for deletion. Please participate in the discussion here. Tupsumato (talk) 06:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyediting question

Without looking it up, can you guys give me your first guess what "landing ship minelayer" means? This will help me answer a copyediting question. - Dank (push to talk) 19:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

A landing ship for minelayers? Parsecboy (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

There's no wrong answer to this btw (well I shouldn't say that, someone will come up with one :). Thanks Nate ... anyone else? - Dank (push to talk) 21:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

With the weird and wonderful naming conventions for amphibious warfare vessel types, my guess would be a landing ship that has been modified to operate as a naval mine deploying vessel. -- saberwyn 23:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Silba-class landing ship-minelayer is a Croatian ship now up at GAN. The nom's sources say "landing ship-minelayer", translating directly, so my question is: is the phrase "landing ship X" going to automatically mean "WWII landing ship for Xs" for a lot of readers? (I don't think the hyphen will make a difference.) - Dank (push to talk) 23:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as much as the name aircraft carrier means people think first of superheavies like the Nimitz class and not peewees like the Thai HTMS Chakri Naruebet. A closer example would be the Landing Craft Tank (Rocket) was a rocket barge instead of landing rocket tanks. As long as the article explains what the ship is and does, you shouldn't have any problems.

As an aside, I'd personally prefer no hyphen, but I Am Not A CopyEditor, and I don't know how to express "landing craft/minelayer" in an article title. -- saberwyn 02:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the standard naming format would be something like Landing Ship (Minelayer), LS(M), or Landing Ship Minelayer, LSM. The dash really wouldn't pop up in any standard source, I believe. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Question

Is Debark (ship) within the project's scope? - The Bushranger _{One ping only}

I think that might be a stretch. But that's just my 2 cents. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)